The concept of the two natures in/of Christ is an old debate, and it is one of those things that cannot be settled logically because the definition of terms makes it something like the old puzzle, "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?".

The temptation narrative seems to me to be saying that Jesus struggled with sin issues -- as a real human being -- but chose to be true to Himself and true to God. If you are troubled by this possibility within the framework of Incarnation, I suppose an adoptionistic stance is somewhat possible -- that out of His obedience "God has MADE HIM to be Lord and Christ."

Another aspect of this debate, related to genesis12's admonition that we deal with Christ as sinless and not speculate .. a member of a class I teach asked me last week what evidence we have that Jesus was without sin. The Gospels could have been sanitized, he said. And the idea of the sinlessness of Christ depends heavily on the passage in Hebrews that declares it without presenting evidence. Argumentum e silentio? What do our forum members think?

Site Supporter

BTW, my personal view is that He could not have sinned (it was impossible for Him to choose to go against His nature).

Doug

Click to expand...

I know I am opening this up but...

I believe Jesus could have sinned in the very same sense that an unregenerate person could accept salvation purely of his own accord and goodness.

You are absolutely right. It is a matter of nature however there were no material constraints that prevented Him from sinning. The objective capability to sin was present due to His humanity... but what He "would" do always overrode what He "could" do.

Jesus Christ was born non posse peccare (not able to sin). He never ceased having possession of the divine. I suppose, if Jesus was not divine, He could sin. Separate the deity of Jesus Christ from His humanity and you will be able to speculate.

Originally posted by Joseph M. Smith:
The temptation narrative seems to me to be saying that Jesus struggled with sin issues -- as a real human being -- but chose to be true to Himself and true to God. If you are troubled by this possibility within the framework of Incarnation, I suppose an adoptionistic stance is somewhat possible -- that out of His obedience "God has MADE HIM to be Lord and Christ."

Click to expand...

Adoptionism is a heresy. Either Jesus has always been God or he is not God at all since the definition of God would have to be that he was always God. Otherwise, we have a God who was man, like the Mormons (kind of ironic with your name).

I see no problem in believing that Jesus struggled with sin, as the Bible says, but did not sin. I don't think he could have sinned since he was God, but still he was tempted. There is no way to explain this. I think that it is just one of those mysteries about the nature of Christ that we cannot understand.

Another aspect of this debate, related to genesis12's admonition that we deal with Christ as sinless and not speculate .. a member of a class I teach asked me last week what evidence we have that Jesus was without sin. The Gospels could have been sanitized, he said. And the idea of the sinlessness of Christ depends heavily on the passage in Hebrews that declares it without presenting evidence. Argumentum e silentio? What do our forum members think?

Click to expand...

If the Gospels were sanitized, then why believe anything in it? We would not know what is true or what is not true. The Bible is clear that Jesus was without sin. What evidence do we need to believe that?

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.1 Peter 2.22

You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.1 John 3.5

If the Gospels were sanitized, then why believe anything in it? We would not know what is true or what is not true. The Bible is clear that Jesus was without sin. What evidence do we need to believe that?

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.1 Peter 2.22

You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.1 John 3.5

Click to expand...

</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for these quotations, which add to the one from Hebrews that I cited. But the problem with the Gospels is that they are selective. John even tells us that his report is purposely selective. So the evangelists might have chosen not to report anything that verged on the sinful. In the end, we as Christians make a faith commitment to the sinlessness of Jesus. It is not something that can be proved. The statements from the epistles you quoted as well as the one from Hebrews I cited are affirmations that cannot fully assure us that Jesus did not sin. All we have for the evidence of that is a set of reports that mention no sin. Someone could write a report of my life that would suggest that I did not sin, and someone else could even claim it. But that would not be true, not by a long shot!

FWIW, I personally do not deny the sinlessness of Jesus. I am throwing this out not only to get help in responding to my class member, but also to point out that the veracity of the Scriptures is a faith affirmation, not something that can be proved by logic.

Site Supporter

Originally posted by Calvibaptist: I don't believe that temptation necessitates ability any more than command necessitate ability. You are assuming something that is not necessarily true.

Click to expand...

Actually I just asked a question.

Man actually does have the "ability". A man is no more able to reason or act after regeneration than before. He doesn't receive greater mental or physical ability at regeneration. What he receives is a new will. I constantly have a problem with the declaration that man is unable. He is only "unable" to the extent that he is uniformly "unwilling"... not because God has prevented him.

Further, I still have not seen a proof against my contention that Christ did not lack the mental or physical faculties to sin. His divine nature meant that He would not. His human nature meant that He could had He so "willed".

For instance, there was nothing other than His perfect divine will that kept Him from sexual sins. As far as we know, He had a normal human body with normal human urges and desires. There was nothing physical nor mental that inhibited Him. His temptation in the wilderness seems to point to the notion that his physical needs and desires were just as strong as ours.

Site Supporter

Originally posted by Brother Bob: Titus, chapter 1
"2": In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie cannot lie, promised before the world began;

If we have a God who cannot lie then why wouldn't we have one who cannot sin?

Click to expand...

Lying is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of God. Sin was inconsistent with the spiritual nature of Jesus. Belief is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of the unregenerate. Disbelief is inconsistent with the nature of the regenerate.

Lying is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of God. Sin was inconsistent with the spiritual nature of Jesus. Belief is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of the unregenerate. Disbelief is inconsistent with the nature of the regenerate.

Click to expand...

Say what!!! explain please are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I can not tell.

(If God cannot lie according to the Scripture then it would not take a rocket scientist to think He could not sin. I mean the whole emphasis that He could is that God can do what He wants but according to Scripture He cannot lie. So, we either take the Scripture or make one up on our own.)

Since God cannot be tempted it was obviously the flesh part, man part, that was tempted. His spirit was not created at the time his body was created. His spirit has always existed, and took up residence in the body that was created for him. (Hebrews 10:5)
For a few years I had the questions about this problem(temptation)but after prayer and more prayer this is the answer I believe I have been given consequently I am very much at peace with this answer.

Site Supporter

Originally posted by Brother Bob: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Lying is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of God. Sin was inconsistent with the spiritual nature of Jesus. Belief is inconsistent with the spiritual nature of the unregenerate. Disbelief is inconsistent with the nature of the regenerate.

Click to expand...

Say what!!! explain please are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I can not tell.

(If God cannot lie according to the Scripture then it would not take a rocket scientist to think He could not sin. I mean the whole emphasis that He could is that God can do what He wants but according to Scripture He cannot lie. So, we either take the Scripture or make one up on our own.) </font>[/QUOTE]I have not attempted to agree nor disagree with you. I have attempted to state the truth as I discern it. You can agree or disagree.

The question is "Could He sin?" My response is that He only cannot because it would be against His nature to do so. There was no physical nor mental block that prevented it. By this- "we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" who none the less cannot lie. He cannot because He WILLS not... not because there was anything in his physical or mental make-up that prevented Him from sinning.

This goes to the very core of "why" I believe it is necessary for God to regenerate a man before he can make the "free will" decision to be saved. Before having his will changed by the Holy Spirit by new birth... it is against his nature to repent or accept Christ.

Site Supporter

Originally posted by Brother Bob: I wasn't accuseing you of attempted to agree or disagree with me. I was simply wanted to know what you said for I didn't understand it. (such hostility, don't understand it among Christians!!!!)

Click to expand...

It's the silent "H" in HTULIP, a common trait I see here on the BB by the reformers.